Slashdot Mirror
100,000 Civilians Dead in Iraq
asldihf writes "New Scientist is reporting that 100,000 civilians in Iraq are now dead due to America's war in Iraq. Make sure you vote next week."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
How many of his own people Saddam killed. And how many of those deaths are due to terrorists trying to recapture his legacy.
I won't get fooled again.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Different sites have different stats, but one civilian death is one too many.
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
In other news, The Economist is running a story on whether Koch's postulates apply to modern illnesses.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I could swear the president's right hand man said that they would minimize civilian casualties?
With those 100,000 dead....200,000 if you include Falluja according to the article, don't you sleep better at night here in the US, knowing that we're safer now?
Bush says it's a success in Iraq! We got rid of the dictator...so the Iraqi people should just bow down to us and totally accept democracy and throw roses and chocolates to our soldiers who are helping to make their country safe!
So if by "success" Bush means "total fucking fiasco" then yes...it was a success.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
I was going to make a +5 Funny post about how George W. Bush is keeping us safe, but the subject is just too horrible.
The war on terror is not meant to be won, it's meant to be an excuse for any atrocity.
How can anyone think this is justified? It's sick.
From The Age (Google cache to skip registration): We have records of 600,000 executions and we estimate that 180,000 died in the uprising including the Marsh Arabs. The bombing of Halabja left 5000 dead," Mr al-Huoseyni said.
Like the posting said, make sure you vote--just like the people in Iraq finally had a chance to.
The overall risk of death was 1.5 times more after the invasion than before.
That also includes the invasion itself. At this rate, eventually it may go down.
Latewire
Sure, we Americans love to complain about war deaths that save many more lives, but what about the 44,670,812 innocent children we've killed since 1973?
Uh- Kerry always said he would have gone to war too, that's why I voted for Kucinich in the primary. The difference is he would have gone with more troops- even if it meant a draft- and more planning- even if it meant giving the inspectors a few more weeks- and better intelligence- even if it meant confirming every detail- and probably would have actually *bothered* to guard or destroy munitions depots as we went. Plus, as a Democrat, he wouldn't have given in to the Iraqi NRA- he would have disarmed civilians as we invaded as well (how stupid do you have to be to invade a country, destroy it's entire civil government, and NOT disarm the people?). I think all of that would have ended up with fewer battle casualties- and more friendly fire incidents.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
For this report, the sample numbers were EXTREMELY EXTREMELY low: 988 housholds. The potential for error here is astounding. So they had confirmation of 6%. That's silly. The death count is constantly overreported. Every article about military firefights ends with a quote from some official saying how the Americans attacked mostly women, children, and the elderly. It's the standard line and it gets old and less believable each time. I would really like to see statistics on who was killed and how the deaths occurred. Firefights with US troops? Bombings? Deaths during reconstruction? Who is called a "civilian?"
Given Iraq's ancient history, I bet that hundreds of millions are currently dead there.
Whoops, missed the anti-Bush (I won't be voting for him either) jab at the end of the submission.
Household Survey Sees 100,000 Iraqi Deaths
And there are some troblesome excerpts:
Just so we're clear, this is what that guy who think's he's a reporter(drudge) has on his site:
NBCNEWS Brokaw interviewed John Kerry Thursday evening.
Brokaw: "If you had been President, Saddam Hussein would be in power."
Kerry: "Not necessarily."
Brokaw: "You said you wouldn't go to war against him."
Kerry: "That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons."
Brokaw: "But he wasn't destroying them."
Kerry: "That's what you have inspectors for. That's why I voted for the threat of force, because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's irresponsible to suggest that if I were President, he wouldn't be gone. He might be gone, because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war, but if we did, we would have gone with allies, so the American people weren't carrying the entire burden. And the entire world would understand why we did it."
Hmmm...Where did Kerry say he would have gone to war to? He was responding to the statement that Saddam would still be in power and he said "not necessarily". Then he stated about how we "may" have gone to war with all our allies if Saddam hadn't backed down and stopped farting around with the weapons inspectors.
But to take what he said and just thrown out flippantly "would probably have been the same" is kind of not true.
This is quite an unlikely article -- even moreso than the double-counting IraqBodyCount.net
I suspect this is a hackneyed attempt at an "October Surprise".
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
It should have been:
I was going to make a post about how George W. Bush is keeping us safe that I thought would be moded +5 Funny.
I think you were thinking a bit optimistically.
I'm calling BS on this article. They conducted a sampling survey to generate these numbers? Come on now. I'm more inclined to believe iraqbodycount.org and the media always gets it wrong (and never corrects themselves.) And to blame most of the deaths on the US bombing? Total horse $hit. Have innocent people died in Iraq? Hell yes. Have many of them been our fault? Yes. Have any of them been deliberate? No. Half of the innocent lives lost over here, by estimation and observation for the past eight months I've been in Baghdad (being a little involved in intelligence reports), come from the insurgents/terrorists. Their road-side bombs and car bombs as often target civilians and Iraqi security forces (the ones who take huge personal risk upon themselves and their families to try to make a difference in the future of their country) as they target Coalition Forces. This article is BS BS BS BS!
Robert Horton - "The research was completed under the most testing of circumstances - an ongoing war. And therefore certain limitations were inevitable and need to be acknowledged right away"
Why would you publish a study that is by it's very nature inconclusive and impossible to verify? Why would you publish one in the week before a major election? I think you can answer these questions for yourselves.
I have no doubts that many civilians have died. Every other night I see a report about a car bomb going off in some crowded area killing ten or more and injuring 20-30 people, many of them women and children who later die from their wounds... rarely there is a report that a US soldier is killed or injured by these attacks.
I'm also certain that there have been civilian deaths as a result of Coalition Airstrikes. The insurgent forces and foreign terror groups both choose to hide among the civilian population... taking them hostage while claiming to be their protectors.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
I think I could have done this study with three chimps, a dart board and some peanut butter and still come up with more believable data.
Someone hates these cans.
...is what would the cost in lives have been if the U.S. had done nothing? In the short term I'm guessing more lives have been lost because of the war, but in the long term, will it have been worth it?
My guess is that history will prove that the war was worth it, not only for Iraqis but for the world as a whole.
I'm interested in seeing the new movie "Voices of Iraq" that just came out. From the reviews I've read, including one on NPR last night, it sounds like it provides evidence that the average ordinary Iraqi is grateful for what the U.S. has done (even though they want us to leave as soon as possible).
> Maybe
How about an inverted flag, the traditional signal of distress.
(FWIW, I've been sticking the "flag" postage stamps on my mail upside down.)
> How about the hundreds of thousands of people who are now free from tyranny in Iraq under Sadam's regime?
It's not clear that they're free from tyranny yet, what with the security sweeps, mass arrests, prison abuse, media shutdowns, and the US bombing barber shops to terrorize the residents of Fallujah into submission.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
correction: 'Tripe to get posted?'
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
If it's a war to free the people of Iraq and reduce terrorism, it's a miserable failure.
If it's a war to get cheaper oil, boost the profits of USA construction companies and demonstrate how dangerous the USA can be, it's an astounding success.
If you believe what Bush says, then he's a miserable failure. If you don't believe what Bush says, he's an aggressive, greedy zealot. Either way, nobody should be voting for him.
Also, this story was not done by the NewScientist team, but rather a report from elsewhere.
Comparing 1,000 households to the entire population is rediculous. So are polls in the U.S., but at least they are done on a regular basis and hopefully not with the same people (resulting in a much wider perspective). -1 Flamebait hippies.
This is a well times lie to fuck Bush. This is an extrapolation. The only evidence of death are mass graves made by Saddam's secret police and troops and we find them and unearth them. Yet Sean Penn says Iraq was a wonderland before the war. We chose to believe Sean Penn and not mass graves?
There are no bodies that have been counted in the study. Like Kerry's no cell phone calling lying pollsters, they surveys 1000 homes and then extrapolated this false outrageous lie.
This whole thing was done at Kerry's behest. This is a Kerry and Soros attempt to subject us to the will of the UN.
If you believe the lies and propaganda, especially timed news releases right before an election, you are a fool.
Rock the vote morons, and lose your rights. You think patriot was bad, wait until Kofi Annan takes your guns away.
How many of those 100,000 civilians were involved in attempts to attack American troops? How about the hundreds of thousands of people who are now free from tyranny in Iraq under Sadam's regime?
Interesting...so we were there to help.
Ah, so if another country...say China for instance...were to send troops to America to "help" us we would just lay down our arms, and welcome them with open arms? I mean, they're just trying to help right?
And if by "free from tyranny" you mean "all out civil war" then yeah, that's really something!
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Iraq had problems and we went to help
/. should take their American flag off of the politics topic banner and replace it with a flower or something.
Are you joking? Why didn't we help the people of North Korea or China? Oh right, they actually have weapons of mass destruction.
If by "help" you meant "kill" then you're right.
How many of those 100,000 civilians were involved in attempts to attack American troops?
None, that's why this is a count of civillians.
How about the hundreds of thousands of people who are now free from tyranny in Iraq under Sadam's regime?
And are now under the tryranny of American occupation. Your exercise in moral relativism does not make a meaningful point.
Maybe
Right, 'cause you're not a good American if you have a problem with invading a sovereign nation that DID NOT THREATEN US, and while occupying it killing loads of civillians.
"it does not matter if the war is not real. For when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous.'"
"A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance, this new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. the war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or east Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact"
Insightful ???? > take their American flag off of the politics topic > banner and replace it with a flower or something Why take the American flag off ? Are americans unable to behave peacefully ? Do you want to imply that non-"pro-war" citizens are not Americans, or don't deserve the US flag ? Because war is sooo cool and flower-power is soooo lame ? I don't know any of your soldiers, but what are *they* saying ? You know, the people that *actually* fight... what are they thinking about this ?
The story forgot to mention the other side. According to the Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq, 600,000 civilians were executed during Sadaam Hussein's regime.
What is the "Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq"? Is it this? It doesn't look very scientific.
Saddam was undoubtedly very keen on executions, but 600,000 seems like a huge over-estimate. Of course it depends on how you define an "execution" -- for example if you count the gassing of the Kurds with the chemical weapons the West sold him.
Like the posting said, make sure you vote--just like the people in Iraq finally had a chance to.
When did Iraq have elections?
Can I mod the article as -1:Troll? "Make sure you vote next week?" Let's skip all the rigamaroll...just post at the end of every politics article "And remember...we don't like Bush, we like Kerry!".
I'm pissed when I get modded down for any of my pro-Bush comments, but this is just blatant bias in the text of an article. A little more objectivity wouldn't hurt here.
--trb
The World is now more peaceful than ever. Both the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and Project Ploughshares report that the number of conflicts and the total bloodshed declined to new lows in 2003. Bush has ended the 25 years of war in Afghanistan. The Administration has also negotiated a cease-fire in southern Sudan, ending a civil war that killed over two million people, and the Administration has kept Darfur from turning into another Rwanda. Bloodshed has also decreased in Palestine, Kashmir, and Africa. Now Iraq is about to become an model of peace, democracy, and freedom.
While Clinton was busy negotiating "peace" with Arafat, 800,000 people were slaughtered in Rwanda, 1 million died in war in Sudan, hundreds of thousands died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the world did not seem to care. With Bush as president, the rest of the world actually seems to care about innocent bloodshed. The more that war leads the news, the faster peace breaks out.
September 12
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
"One major project, www.iraqbodycount.net, estimates up to 16,300 deaths in Iraq due to coalition forces. But this collects data on deaths reported in the press only. "We've always maintained that the actual count must be much higher," says Scott Lipscomb, at Northwestern University, Illinois, US, who works on the project. "I am emotionally shocked but I have no trouble in believing that this many people have been killed," he told The New York Times."
There's an entire paragraph right in the article explaining why the people who came up with iraqbodycount.net readily admit their figure is woefully low.
Terrorists are considered Civilians according to international reports. Insurgents are considered Civilians according to most international reports.
So what % of those civilians are terrorists and insurgents?
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
This sort of thing'd make me want to vote against Bush, except I heard on FOX! News! that Kerry is against the United States, our troops, our families and innocent little puppies.
None of your quotations are attacking any actual part of the method used in the study, they're just generalisations.
There is no official figure for the number of
Iraqis killed since the conflict began
Well of course there's no fucking official figure. Who could possibly give an "official" figure? God?
some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000.
As time goes on, more people are killed, and it is possible to establish that more people have been killed.
concede that the data they based their projections on were of "limited precision,"
As opposed to most studies which are of infinite precision?
quality of the information depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study
Well yes.
report was released just days before the U.S. presidential election, and the lead researcher said he wanted it that way.
And why not? Isn't this the most vital time that people hear this information?
possible that they may have zoned in on hotspots that might not be representative of the death toll across Iraq
However, this information could be biased in either direction. Some areas of Iraq were excluded because they were too dangerous for the investigators; weren't they likely to have suffered more deaths?
more household clusters would have improved the precision of the report
Well obviously. This is true for any study or poll ever published.
My, but everyone certainly has a lot to say...
The purpose of my post was not to say the numbers are accurate or inaccurate, whether 100,000 dead was acceptable, or whether one action justifies another. That sort of thing cannot be discussed intelligently in a few sentences.
The purpose of my post was to place the story in context and give additional facts not mentioned. An informed discussion needs all of the facts.
Alright smart guy, you come up with a plan to disarm the people. I disagree with a lot of things about this war, and I think it could have been planned better. But you are welcome to come over here and disarm the people so they can be killed by the bad guys who still have weapons. AK-47s do not represent a significant threat to our forces! It is far more valuable to have lightly armed civilians capable of defending their homes and neighborhoods from the bad guys(TM) (which they are starting to do now) than it would be to have spent months or years trying to disarm the entire population!
That Kerry has "always" sais he'd have gone to war to that Brokaw is suprised at Kerry's response to the question "If you were President, Hussein would still be in power"
Oh and Kerry is for the draft too... hmmmm...
Would that I had mod points, but I've already posted a practical carbon copy of your post in this thread, so I might as well respond...
This is insane. An article including "Make sure you vote next week" after quoting a figure that is 3-10 times greater than other estimates on deaths in Iraq. I won't go into the fact that it's from a medical journal or that it's being posted days before the election, suffice to say that the article's text is ridiculous on its own merit.
--trb
The figure of 100,000 - estimated by extrapolating the surveyed households' death toll to the whole population
Yeah, ok. Congrats on your screwy math.
Not All Who Wander Are Lost
Well, considering this huge political troll was posted and peer-reviewed in a scientific journal, it would be better suited for a "news for nerds" site than most of the stuff posted on politics.slashdot.org.
I agree the civilian deaths due to the war were a bad thing (although I think our military worked very hard to keep these minimal), but the other option was continuing sanctions. Kerry even spoke out for using sanctions several times during the debates. Here's a quote from UNICEF's fact sheet on what sanctions were causing:
"--Seven years after the imposition of the blockade on the people of Iraq, more than 1.2 million people, including 750,000 children below the age of five, have died because of the scarcity of food and medicine. 32 percent of children under age 5, some 960,000 children, are chronically malnourished--a rise of 72 percent since 1991. 23% are underweight - twice as high as the levels found in neighboring Jordan or Turkey. (UNICEF, 1997)"
I don't think sanctions would have been lifted soon, either. In the run up to the latest war Hans Blix, the head of the UN inspection team, was continually reporting that Iraq was simply not cooperating fully and not showing an intent to disarm. Inspections are not supposed to be hide and seek, it's supposed to be a cooperative effort and that just wasn't happening.
I do not understand how the articles that are considered for posting are being filtered. I would like to know the number of "pro-Bush" versus "pro-Kerry" submissions are actually accepted. Not a single "pro-Bush" subject even shows up on the list yet I know that they are being submitted. Like this one GOP beats Dems on tech-friendliness.
Given that Slashdot is such a techie heavy site you would think that something combining tech and politics would be appropriate yet articles like these never seem to be accepted.
oh well...I'm done ranting now and am willing to accept the Offtopicness of this posting.
Few days ago, made me think of all the prophecies regarding World War 3 and how "the war on terror" is supposed to be a "world war". Then I remembered that hardly anyone was involved other than the US and Iraq...
And to think, if done PROPERLY, World War 3 could have actually been a GOOD thing.
- shazow
You're comparing George Bush to Saddam Hussein? Wow man, thanks for being upfront with your fascist tendencies. I mean, I think they're both evil, but I'm not really sure that saying "George Bush: not as evil as Saddam" is all that much of a platform.
So that there can be a policy change and instead of trying to fix Iraq (the right way... by actually allowing the people to govern themselves) just pull out and leave them at the mercy of the "freedom" fighters.... who, once in power, will probably be Saddam V2.0 .... like it or not, your government fucked things up in Iraq (don't get me wrong; they were incredibly fucked up to begin with...) but you went in with the promise of helping to fix things. The Afghanis hate you because you went in with the same promise (albeit slightly different in that you were requesting their help vs the Russians...) but left before you could fulfill your end of the bargain... and left the country at the mercy of the "freedom" fighters... who fucked up the country more than the Russians likely would have.
I know I'll get modded into oblivion for this, but please, hear me out. We all know that Bush led everyone into that country under false pretenses, and now all those who backed out, including my country are basically saying "told you so." ... and for the record I am pissed that we did not go in with you; Don Cherry said it best: "If you go into a bar, and your buddy gets into a fight, it doesn't matter who started the fight, or who was right and who was wrong, you back your buddy up." none of this changes the fact, however, that Iraq is getting more and more fucked up as time goes on. Unless it gets fixed, it will come back to bite all of us in the ass.
I'm not saying that you should vote for or against Bush (though personally I don't like him, or his policies.) What I am saying is that regardless of which person gets voted into office they need to know that you support efforts in Iraq.... just not the current style of efforts that are being deployed. I wish I had the link to the blog of one of Americas sons who is/was over there and laid it on the line (it was on /. not too long ago) .... tell your government to sit up and take fucking notice. It's too late to cry over whether or not the war was right, but not too late to tell your government that they need to clean up the mess, and that the current efforts are B/S....
anyway... commence flaming/modding to oblivion...
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
the guy who can raise the dead.
#19845
Boy am I glad we went to war without our allies. It's a good thing Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Poland, and the dozens of others aren't here because I want to do it all myself. So Germany and France didn't come? Germany and France sold weapons to Iraq leading up to the war? Who are our Allies?
That's 100,000 fewer likely terrorists. Bush has my vote, only if he kills more of them.
The authors of the article make no distinction between combatant and non-combatant civilian deaths.
The news agencies do make this distinction which may explain the large discrepency.
Do not look into LASER with remaining eye!
"He might be gone, because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war..."
And if so, then the casualty count probably would've been the same.
BTW, anybody have any civilian casualty counts on Bosnia?
War sucks. I'm not defending Bush' actions in Iraq.
But putting up a post that basically says "100,000 civilians dead, remember to vote!" implying that this wouldn't have happened under the other candidate is hubris. Especially when the other candidate says he would've gone to war under another set of circumstances!
Alright smart guy, you come up with a plan to disarm the people.
Let's start with something VERY simple- and move on from there. Have enough troops to search every building in the country- I've seen estimates around 740,000 troops needed for this- BEFORE you invade. As you go, if you find a weapon, TAKE IT, or DESTROY IT- don't leave it around for some insurgency a month or six months later to use!
disagree with a lot of things about this war, and I think it could have been planned better. But you are welcome to come over here and disarm the people so they can be killed by the bad guys who still have weapons. AK-47s do not represent a significant threat to our forces!
Tell that to the 200 or so out of the 1000 dead who were shot by AK-47s.
It is far more valuable to have lightly armed civilians capable of defending their homes and neighborhoods from the bad guys(TM) (which they are starting to do now) than it would be to have spent months or years trying to disarm the entire population!
That's the big mistake Bush has made- there ain't no such thing as civilians in Iraq. Only various factions of verious fanatical terrorist groups. Saddam knew this- heck, he actually warned that if we took him out of power the whole thing would degrade into civil war. And gee- that's exactly what is happening. Do a job right the first time, and you don't have to do it twice. Do a job wrong, and in this case you'll have more casualties the second time you take Fallujah- and the third- and the fourth- and the fifth- and the sixth- until you wisen up and DISARM THE POPULACE.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Kerry still isn't actually sure what he would do. Even with a massive amount of hindsight available to him. He might have done something, or he might not. Thats his stance. Still. Its amazing that you can continue to deceive yourself about John Kerry on national defense.
Jesus H. Christ. We have about 300,000+ reservists we haven't called up yet, not to mention all the regular troops sitting on their ass in Germany and eastern europe.
We could triple the number of troops in Iraq and still not need a fucking draft.
We all know "official" figures are better, because officials making official statements have no agenda, and are only interested in facts.
I'm not sure why you're interested in the "since the conflict began" part. I mean, that's the stated point - to measure things since the conflict began.
some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000.
Sure, and some faith-based visionaries will talk about the "opportunity value" of not having people tortured by Saddam, while ignoring the people tortured by the U.S. People disagree about all sorts of things, and estimates even more so.
concede that the data they based their projections on were of "limited precision,"
Are you taking issue with people stating that their data has a margin of error?
quality of the information depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study
I don't understand getting excited about a fact: if you ask someone a question, and they lie, you get bad data.
report was released just days before the U.S. presidential election, and the lead researcher said he wanted it that way.
It was probably partisan. Neat. The neat thing about partisan behaviour: both sides can play. What does Rove come up with? "Well, the troops are to blame for those explosives being missing. And Kerry is a waffly guy."
possible that they may have zoned in on hotspots that might not be representative of the death toll across Iraq
It is also possible that people were flown in to die there, just to make the faith-based coalition of the willing look bad. What's the problem you're attempting to identify?
more household clusters would have improved the precision of the report
Um. Are you taking issue with the fact that they failed to survey every single person in Iraq? The U.S. seems to be willing to elect the next president on faith-based voting platforms, and you're taking issue with a statement about margin of error?
For the record: yes, I'm for Kerry, and fail to see how anyone who cares about the future of the U.S. can't be. I expect to hate him as soon as he's elected (in a contest between nearly anyone and Kerry, I'd take nearly anyone), but the combination of Bush's incompetence, hubris, political calculation and unwillingness to visit reality, I'll take Kerry, thanks.
As for this survey, sure, it is a partisan attack. It is also based on facts. It is inprecise, to be sure. Are you willing to talk about the overall underlying reality of what it is pointing out, or do you want to pick at nits while plugging your ears?
I forget what 8 was for.
American Freedom including the right to keep and bear arms?
Second Ammendment at work!
In planning the war, it was estimated that the civilian casualties would be only about 10,000 if the US invaded Iraq. This estimate went into the decision of whether or not we should go forward with the invasion.
It misses the point to say, "Well Sadaam killed 6x the number of people so this course of action was the lesser of two evils."
I think a lot of Americans think it's impossible for an Iraqi to look on us as occupiers rather liberators, unless that Iraqi was somehow closely associated with the regime. Well, I think this number explains a lot. Remember, you can't use gross numbers -- it's always misleading. When you take apart the numbers, some interesting insights occur. Probably a disproporitionate number of people that Sadaam killed were Kurds, whereas a disproportionate number of Iraqis killed by our aerial campaign were non-Kurd. It wouldn't be surprising then to find that Kurds are relatively more likely to support the US occupation than the average Iraqi.
Another way to disaggregate the numbers is by politics. Sadaam probably focused his murderous activities on political enemies and their families. Death by being in the wrong place, on the other hand, is indiscriminate. So if you are a Sunni man in the street, there was nothing you could do short of going out into the hills and hiding to reduce your exposure.
Furthermore, in the attempt to attack the Baathist leadership, I wouldn't be surprised if the impact fell disproportionately in Sunni areas. It's also interesting to note the difference in attitude towards the the occupation among Shii from Baghdad and those in cities like Kerbala.
In any case, the situation we have encountered in Iraq should make us chary of a strategy of leadership assassination by precision munition. Not only did this strategy have very little success, it's civilian cost was greatly underestimated (or at least underrepresented). A clearer understanding of this, along with calculating its impact on post-invasion strategy, might well have lead to different decisions during the major combat phase of the war.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What fascist tendencies? I stated a fact about how many people died under Saddam Hussein. I did not draw any conclusions from it. I did not say "George Bush: not as evil as Saddam". Since when does stating facts make a person a fascist?
Would've, would've, would've. Hindsight is 20/20. John Kerry as weall as Kucinich do a lot of talk.
Plus, as a Democrat, he wouldn't have given in to the Iraqi NRA
Um, what?? How many troops are you talking here? 2 million? Do you have any idea of the cost? You think that GWB didn't disarm the populace because of his feelings on gun control ??? It would be next to impossible to do, and wouldn't leave the iraqis with much of a warm feeling for their "liberators". Street fighting is where Americans die fastest, and they were right to stay mostly out of town.
Besides, the *whole* strategy of the invasion was to get into Bagdad is quickly as possible, much like the wildly-successful island hopping campaign of the Pacific during WWII. And again, the invasion was wildly succesfull. The problem comes in at post-war planning, and the much touted "exit-strategy". Did GWB screw the pooch on that on? Yep. Would've Kerry or any other Dem done differently? I don't think so. It's just talk.
The difference is he would have gone with more troops- even if it meant a draft
You say this as a good thing. A draft? Are you serious? Are you a cloaked republican? You must be dreaming if you think kucinich would've considered a draft.
even if it meant confirming every detail
Give me a break. I lot of Democrats voted *for* the war after seeing the same intellegence as the president. You can't confirm every detail. You are living in a dream world if you think that any of this would've happened. I'm not a Republican, I'm not voting for Bush, but you're scenario is utterly inconcievable and pure conjecture.
I think all of that would have ended up with fewer battle casualties- and more friendly fire incidents.
+4 insighful?!? You want more friendly fire incidents??? Troll.
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Your hindsight is near perfect! So where were we going to get those 740,000 troops? Even if Germany and France had committed troops it would not have been near that number. I know damn well how many of our people have been killed by small arms fire. And it'll be a lot better when the civilians, of which there are a lot, take charge of more of their own safety and security. All the people here have their own self-interests, but MOST of them are not fighting. The process has been started and we will finish it. Iraq as a free, democratic, self-elected, modern Arab nation will be a reality in the long-term and far more valuable as a foothold against the cancer of RADICAL Islam that plagues our world than for whatever political cost or gain in the short term.
But that is why I'm voting for neither Corporate Clown....
Badnarik may not win, but he is IMO the only sane choice.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Jesus H. Christ. We have about 300,000+ reservists we haven't called up yet, not to mention all the regular troops sitting on their ass in Germany and eastern europe.
We could triple the number of troops in Iraq and still not need a fucking draft.
Estimates I've seen say that if we were to do the invasion over, properly, according to the estimates that the Joint Chiefs gave Bush in January 2003, we would need more than FOUR times the current number of troops in Iraq, which is only 160,000. As in 740,000 men- far more than every reservist we have. And the troops in Germany and Eastern Europe long ago went to a skeleton force- that's where we got the troops we sent to Afghanistan, remember?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Fuck Soddam, fuck Bush, fuck Kerry, fuck Osama.
Why do these people have the power to start war?
Joe American doesn't want a war.
He wants to screw his girlfriend, work his job, and drink a few beers.
We're all human; why the hell do we let these people make us kill each other?
As TFA notes: this is 100,000 deaths above the death rate for a previous pre-war period, and; the most common cause of these deaths was airstrikes.
So unless you're suggesting that their countrymen have an extensive air force that they'd been planning on using regardless of the US's invasion, no, it's pretty accurate to characterize these deaths as being the result of American acts.
how stupid do you have to be to invade a country, destroy it's entire civil government, and NOT disarm the people?
Ironic and historically ignorant.
Just take away the RPGs. Maybe the local population needs armour-piercing defense against T-Rex.
What does American Freedom have to do with the rights of an occupied ENEMY population? Did McArthur let the Japanese keep their guns and swords? NO- he disarmed them. Why should the Iraqis be allowed to keep their weapons?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
As TFA article notes: these were 100,000ish deaths above the similar pre-invasion period, and; the most common cause of these deaths was airstrikes.
When both Presidential nominees, Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich, support the war what the hell is "make sure you vote next week" supposed to mean? If you're really against the war you'll be voting Nadar or Badnarik, but I'd be off my rocker to think that's what michael was implying by letting the article through.
Article points:
+100,000 flamebait (for every dead Iraqi by US)
+1,000,000 overrated (for every dead Iraqi by Saddam)
+5 insightful (for accidentally pointing out that the 3rd parties are the only ones against it all)
Direct away from face when opening.
Sorry, I don't understand. What's amazing?
Correct, I don't know, on either count. I did state my bias, in order to cut out ambiguity there. And, I admit, I did rant a little, which is part of why I stated my bias. But most of my post was about the grandparent, which quibbled about margins of error and statistical bias.
So again, please, what is your point?
I forget what 8 was for.
Good point, I guess the US is only doing four of these six to them. Pax Americana!
Have enough troops to search every building in the country.
Like that is conceivable with 3/4 mil troops. Right. See the americans coming? Just move to a place they've already searched before. Bury wepons. Hide them in walls and under subfloors. How do you garuntee that the populace has been disarmed?? What happens to people that don't want to give up their guns? You think this would *lessen* the civilian casualties in Iraq? You're like what, 12?
there ain't no such thing as civilians in Iraq.
Bullshit. Not every Iraqi wants to take up arms. What a rediculous stereotype. They want what Americans with guns want. To defend their families. Given the current state of Iraq is that a too much to give them? Would you also have America disarmed? I suggest you Mike Moore's first flick. The root of the problem isn't guns.
I've seen estimates around 740,000 troops needed for this- BEFORE you invade
With 740000 troops you think there would be *less* than the current number of American dead? After systematically disarming an unwilling populace. Right. If you try and do that you lose all of you allies, and *then* you are an occupying force. The moderate iraqis now fight *you*. Disarm the populace? Look how well it worked for the Russians in Afganistan. How many Russians died? You seriously think blindly sending in more troops is an unequivolenty good idea? Idiot.
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
As in this case, where the "liberation" angle is emergency spin to cover the lack of WMD in Iraq.
What about "Operation Iraqi Freedom"?
Don't forget the near half a million Kurds Saddam killed in the late 80's.
;-)
Or the millions of people he oppressed.
I love this unbiased story reporting here on the neutral Slashdot.
Get paid to code OSS
Is everyone sure that the war was a bad idea? It seems to me trying to stabilize the region is a good idea. Previous attempts haven't worked very well and have just created an environment that creates terrorists.
The best way to fight terrorism is to build an environment where people don't want to be terrorist. Putting in a democracy (the majority of Iraqi's want a democracy) could have long term effects on the region. The ecomony will certainly improve due to the fact that the sanctions have ended. We won't know how well the plan will work for 10 or 20 years.
Bush took a risk. I like that fact that he didn't contiue with the same old policy of containment. Real change is what was needed. Let the people have some sense of self determination.
Personally, I think the longer term vision is to put pressure on Iran by putting in a democracy in Iraq. Bush always put this under the heading of stabilizing the Middle East. Iran is another big problem country. Some people are starting to talk about this idea now.
The best way to fight terrorism is to build an environment where people don't want to be terrorist
Fine. Then get the entire world to convert to Islam cause every time I here a tape of Osama he basically says "Attack anyone that is not of our religion". And I know this isn't true Islam. Making an area better doesn't work when the guy trying to kill you wants to kill you for the one reason of you not being of the same faith.
Or at least he led us to believe he was.
Is everyone sure that the war was a bad idea? It seems to me trying to stabilize the region is a good idea. Previous attempts haven't worked very well and have just created an environment that creates terrorists.
Yes, Iraq was a horrible idea. At the very least we should have finished up in Afghanistan first, made sure than nation was stable and not producing 75% of the world's opium crop, leading to massive corruption and undermining the authority of the Kabul government.
Bush took a risk. I like that fact that he didn't contiue with the same old policy of containment. Real change is what was needed. Let the people have some sense of self determination.
Fine. One thing at a time. But whereas Afghanistan was an immediate threat to the security interests of the US, Iraq never was, and starting a war for purposes other than immediate threat is both immoral and sinful. We cannot go off on global adventures merely at the whim of a fundmantalist president who thinks there may be some danger far off in the future.
The best way to fight terrorism is to build an environment where people don't want to be terrorist.
Interesting that you should point that out. Iraq was never much of a terrorist threat in the first place. But now that we've gone in there, violated their national soverignty, and made a mess of their country, we've soured the taste of freedom. For them, "freedom" means chaos. It means not being able to go anywhere without fear of being attacked. Even here in this country, a significant minority would rather give up their freedom than their safety (PATRIOT act, anyone?).
Since we've taken away their security, those people who may have viewed us with suspicious neutrality before detest us now. That's where terrorists come from.
Terrorism isn't something you can just get rid of. Hatred like that has to fade away over generations, and we've just renewed it. You are not safer now that we've occupied Iraq. In fact, it's fairly safe to say that we're in more danger.
The post is informative and includes only a small portion of the authors opinion. It is no more a troll than posting the article was. The article is clearly written to pander and support. How so? Well the authors fail to point out that they make NO DISTINCTION between civilian combatants and non-combatants! Hell, you can tell they are being disenenous with just a little time researching facts reported in the news. Suicide bomber kills 50 iraqi's in queue for police jobs. Thos 50 are civilians! Who killed 'em? Civilians. When the Iraqi police retaliate, who do they kill? Civilians! It is now a civil war with the 'coalition' on the side of the majority. We had one of these right here in the USA! Lots of people died. Was it the wrong war at the wrong time? IMO, any time the majority of the population is willing to fight to overthrow an oppressive govt. they deserve help. Hell, if the USA govt. becomes overly opressive, it's gonna happen in the USA. If a 'coalition' helps with that overthrow, will it be 'wrong war, wrong time'? Unless you are the oppressor, liberty is the highest morality for any people.
Do not look into LASER with remaining eye!
Umm, that's a traditional way of saying "I love you". You might want to think back to everyone you've sent such a letter to; you might need to correct a few misunderstandings here and there.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Um, what?? How many troops are you talking here? 2 million? Do you have any idea of the cost? You think that GWB didn't disarm the populace because of his feelings on gun control ???
If McArthur could disarm Japan- GWB's generals could certainly have done an equal or better job disarming Iraq. But the politicians didn't even give them the chance- because they did not think of it.
It would be next to impossible to do, and wouldn't leave the iraqis with much of a warm feeling for their "liberators". Street fighting is where Americans die fastest, and they were right to stay mostly out of town.
There was NO chance that the Iraqis would have any "warm feelings" for their "liberators"- because we aren't liberators, we're an invading army. High time we started acting like one.
Besides, the *whole* strategy of the invasion was to get into Bagdad is quickly as possible, much like the wildly-successful island hopping campaign of the Pacific during WWII. And again, the invasion was wildly succesfull. The problem comes in at post-war planning, and the much touted "exit-strategy". Did GWB screw the pooch on that on? Yep. Would've Kerry or any other Dem done differently? I don't think so. It's just talk.
During the island hopping campaign, we made DAMNED sure we didn't leave behind insurgents to attack us, either with carpet bombing or with massive invasion forces overwhelming each and every island. Our failures were few- there were a few, and some of them didn't come out of hiding until the 1960s- but we certainly didn't leave behind millions of people to attack us either.
You say this as a good thing. A draft? Are you serious?
Actually, I personally thought it should have been done within a week of 9-11 when patriotic fever was still high. We could have had a mobilization that would have ended the economic recession, given us more than enough troops to conduct the War on Terror on several fronts, and also given us the troop strength to (gasp) protect the Homeland better than the Bush Administration is doing now (say, by adding a million or so uniformed MPs to the shipyards to help search the 1.2 million shipping containers crossing our border each day, or actually securing the Arizona border so that the Mexican Army can't run drugs and terrorists into Tuscon anymore).
Are you a cloaked republican?
No, just a disillusioned one who re-registered as a Democrat briefly, and then after finding out that the Democrats were just as corrupt, re-registered Technocrat. I voted for Kerry because I'm in a swing state that uses mail in voting only, and my wife was going to the library anyway and I didn't want to waste a stamp.
You must be dreaming if you think kucinich would've considered a draft.
I said that KERRY would have considered the draft, not Kucinich- Kucinich would have followed Augustine's City of God and never bothered to involve a third country in the War on Terror to begin with (or even a second one).
Give me a break. I lot of Democrats voted *for* the war after seeing the same intellegence as the president. You can't confirm every detail. You are living in a dream world if you think that any of this would've happened. I'm not a Republican, I'm not voting for Bush, but you're scenario is utterly inconcievable and pure conjecture.
As is any scenario the Bushites come up with saying that Kerry would pull out a week after taking office, so what?
+4 insighful?!? You want more friendly fire incidents??? Troll.
That bit is just realistic- even Kerry's currently scaled back version of adding 40,000 more troops to Iraq (which can be accomplished without a draft) WILL result in more friendly fire incidents- whether we like it or not, adding more people will increade the number of accidents involving those people alone.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Too bad we can't moderate stories as trolls or flamebait.
It was a war people! The purpose of war is to KILL PEOPLE.
It's funny how attitudes have changed. 200 years ago, we would have cited "empire-building" as the reason for invading Iraq, and the world would have been fine with it, just as they were with the English, Dutch, Spanish, French, Danish, Portuguese, Italians, Russians, and Germans.
How many native americans died during Cortez's conquest of Latin/South America? How many Gauls died during Julius Caesar's conquest of Western Europe? How many Persians died at the hands of Alexander's army?
Heck, it wasn't even until last century that the Ottoman and British Empires were laid to rest!
I'm not saying that invading Iraq was the right thing to do - I went on record then saying that I didn't think we had enough cause to invade. But it is an interesting thing to observe, I think, how much different the worlds' attitude toward empires is now.
n/t
So where were we going to get those 740,000 troops?
Within the first two weeks after 9-11, when everybody was comparing the attack on the WTC to Pearl Harbor, we had the opportunity to increase our Armed Forces and to mobilize our nation in EXACTLY the same way that FDR did during WWII- with all production retooled to war material, and all excess labor soaked up to either production of stuff necessary for the national defense or the army. Bush WASTED that opportunity- and did the second of many actions that have since disillusioned me on the entire American Political System.
I know damn well how many of our people have been killed by small arms fire. And it'll be a lot better when the civilians, of which there are a lot, take charge of more of their own safety and security.
And when will that be, do you imagine? The Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'ites have been fighting for control of Iraq off and on for about 5,000 years now. What makes you think that they'll stop now?
All the people here have their own self-interests, but MOST of them are not fighting.
Most of them are still looking for the electricity and water we promised them a year ago. But given their history, I'm sure they'll get back to fighting soon enough- they always have in the past.
The process has been started and we will finish it. Iraq as a free, democratic, self-elected, modern Arab nation will be a reality in the long-term and far more valuable as a foothold against the cancer of RADICAL Islam that plagues our world than for whatever political cost or gain in the short term.
And which one of the three radical Islamic Groups do you suppose will be elected to power? My guess is the Taliban, the politcal arm of the Shi'ites, as they have the most votes.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Over at the CSMonitor they have a nice page that has links to different sites like The Times of London and the New York Times and their takes on this story.
Find the coverage here.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Christians fought and killed eachother and other religions in the past as well. And still do today, but not nearly as much. So what is to say it is not the time for Islam to recognize the need for peace and the chance to start something here? And most of the people here have more electricity and more water than a year ago! Many have more electricity than before the war. It is more equitably distributed now than it was then, so some Iraqis have less. If they'd stop trying to destroy their own infrastructure, there would be a lot more progress. If Sunni and Shi'a are radical Islam, then what isn't radical Islam? Yes there are radical Sunni, radical Shi'a, just as there are radicals in every other religion. The entire sect is not radical. The government here has been drafted carefully to try to prevent any one group from being in complete power, but ultimately the shape of Iraq's government is in the hands of its soon to be elected government.
Like that is conceivable with 3/4 mil troops. Right. See the americans coming? Just move to a place they've already searched before.
How do you get the weapons across the solid line of troops to the places that they've already searched? Come on man- think logically.
Bury wepons. Hide them in walls and under subfloors.
Yep, bury your gun in the sand, so that when you dig it up again it explodes in your face. Hide them in walls and subfloors, so that when the Americans raise the building they can be buried in the rubble.
How do you garuntee that the populace has been disarmed??
By killing those who aren't, and by blowing up weapons caches as you go. Sure, it takes longer- but at least you've done the job (unlike the current administration, which hasn't).
What happens to people that don't want to give up their guns?
They end up in the mass graves of terrorists that you're going to create anyway.
You think this would *lessen* the civilian casualties in Iraq?
Like I said before, there are no civilians in Iraq- only future terrorists.
You're like what, 12?
33- and apparently more grown up than a President who spent half his life drunk and high.
Bullshit. Not every Iraqi wants to take up arms.
Then why are there still Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites in the country? All of those groups have taken up arms against one another in the past, and will do so again.
What a rediculous stereotype. They want what Americans with guns want. To defend their families.
The best way to do that would be to give up old tribal rivalries.
Given the current state of Iraq is that a too much to give them?
Apparently, YES. Considering the way they've misused the right repeatedly over the last 5000 years or so.
Would you also have America disarmed?
Iraqis aren't Americans and never will be. You're deluding yourself if you think 5000 years worth of tribal rivalries will disappear merely because we force them to sign a Constitution.
I suggest you Mike Moore's first flick. The root of the problem isn't guns.
Agreed- the root of the problem isn't guns. It's a bunch of people who have been bred over the past 5000 years to hate the other 2/3rds of their own country. Giving them guns just adds to the problem.
With 740000 troops you think there would be *less* than the current number of American dead?
Not likely- but there wouldn't still be an insurgency either.
After systematically disarming an unwilling populace. Right. If you try and do that you lose all of you allies, and *then* you are an occupying force.
We're an occupying force no matter what- the second we crossed the border from Kuwait we were an occupying force. Denying it doesn't make the problem any easier.
The moderate iraqis now fight *you*.
They already are- haven't you seen the news lately?
Disarm the populace?
Yep- easiest way to end the problem.
Look how well it worked for the Russians in Afganistan.
It wasn't even TRIED by the Russians in Afghanistan- who never controled more than 1% of the country anyway.
How many Russians died? You seriously think blindly sending in more troops is an unequivolenty good idea?
Actually, I seriously think that sending NUKES in is a unequivolently good idea. But this President and the next are not likely to do it.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
You're right on target. Thank you for posting
after quoting a figure that is 3-10 times greater than other estimates
Yup, except did you see the methods used to obtain those previous estimates? They were based upon the reported deaths at some hospitals in the middle of a war. Others were just guesses based upon numbers reported by other news agencies or organizations. As far as I know this is the only actual attempt to find out the number of casualties via a scientific and peer reviewed method.
I sincerely hope that this study was intentionally skewed, or that it is a statistical aberration, or that there was a serious flaw in the methodology, but as of yet I have not seen any evidence that refutes this report, nor any credible counter reports. Please provide any real and reasoned refutation.
So, you're saying George Bush is as evil as Saddam?
When a U.S. airstrike accidentally kills an iraqi civilian that's a tragedy but it's something that happens in war. When insurgents use car bombs to blow up lines of Iraqi men whose only crime was wanting to help defend their country from terrorist scum, that's a war crime. It's a god-damned shame that too many liberals here on slashdot are quick to see the first act as evil while they dismiss second act as the justified response of a man when his country is invaded.
I know how much you liberals love to hate George W. Bush. Imagine if he cheats his way into power this election and starts executing people who disagree with them. Are you seriously telling me you're going to be mad if the europeans decide they're going to liberate you? That when the EU decides to eliminate the american government and install a real democracy, you guys wouldn't shit your pants with joy knowing that your hated dictator has been deposed? You seriously mean to tell me that instead of working to help secure the newly formed american democracy, you'd decide to kill anyone working with the europeans? Of course you wouldn't, and you know it. If the shoe was on the other foot and you'd been living under the iron grip of a dictator for all these years, you'd be incredibly happy that you were going to have your freedom, and you'd be pissed at those insurgents who were fighting the good men who came to free you. Of course you wouldn't be happy about it when a misplaced EU bomb killed a family member of yours, but i'm sure you wouldn't then decide to capture and decapitate european charity workers.
Please pull your heads out of your collective asses and realize that there is a fight going on, between good people who are fighting for democracy and self determination, and barbians whose goal is to kill anyone who will not submit to their vision of worldwide islamic theocracy.
Those fighting the coalition in Iraq right now are not oppressed Iraqis trying to liberate themselves by foreign oppression, they are evil men whose goal is destroy freedom around the world. I know this may sound naive and stupid when I call men evil, but there's something seriously wrong with you if you don't see people who would intentionally kill civilians and decapitate charity workers as anything but evil. If they really cared so much about iraqi freedom, why would they continually attack the Iraqis who are signing up with the iraqi national guard? Just this past week there were 49 members of the nascent Iraqi Guard were murdered. You mean to tell me that murdering men who were trying to protect your country is something a concerned citizen should do? If you're so blind that you can't see these cowards as anything but victims of United States agression, I hope to god you are never given any power.
My blog
Maybe they should have thought about this before they attacked? It's called the 'exit plan'. But oh, I forget, there was no time to wait. Iraq was just about to nucular the U.S., right?
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Firstly it started off as WMDs, which are now proved to be complete crap
Then it turned into Osama and Iraq were working together which has not only not been proved, but I believe it was made official this week that there was no link
Then it turned suddenly to regieme change, yeah that's a good one lets throw out one dictator.. and put in one that's several thousand miles away
The problem with the regieme change is there are loads of other countries that are far far worse than Iraq but we like to keep those quiet.
It basically all comes down to the fact that whichever of the many reasons you choose to believe, this was an immoral and illegal war in the opinion of most people, and the US and UK governments think we're all so stupid that we'll just swallow whatever they say. And the sad thing is, a lot of us will.
What's worrying is this: I've watched part of the debates, and I watched some of question time last night. People were heckling and jeering opinions that didn't match their own. No one in the USA (and this is the viewpoint of a fair few UK people) seems to ever listen. Everyone believes whatever they choose to beleive, usually on one-sided evidence and refuses to listen to the other side. Unfortunately, those people are then allowed to vote.
I just hope that whatever does happen, someone keeps their brain in gear, because only when all the world leaders come up from their bunkers and see there is no one and nothing left to rule over, will they realise that nobody wins a war. Nobody.
Get paid to search..It's geniune and
That link goes to a page about abortion, not infanticide. See, excising cells (even if they are human) isn't the same as killing a child.
Abortion is birth control. It's not conception-control, which even the most ardent pro-choice advocates prefer. Besides, zygotes-are-children supporters seem to stop caring the second that the baby is born. So what if the mother is not ready to become a parent, can't afford to feed or clothe her child, etc. The important thing is that the foetus was allowed to come to term. How ridiculous is that?
Read my original post and you will see that I offered no opinion on which of the two is more evil. I have an opinion, but that was not stated in the post or is it stated here because that was not what my post was about. The only purpose of the post was to state a fact about deaths under Saddam Hussein.
You call Iraq stabilized???
Here, why don't you drink this can of beer I "stabilized" for you, by shaking it for a few minutes.
Look, nobody thinks Saddam Hussein is a great guy. In theory, having him out of power is a good thing. This method for removing him from power is just about the most outrageous, arrogant, ridiculously blind way of doing it ever conceived.
You can't judge Bush by saying "gee, his heart is in the right place", you have to look at the choices he made.
Even if you ignored all the domestic blunders and focus *solely* on Iraq, you can't see anything but a massive failure. If you want to build an environment where people don't want to be terrorists, you don't go off killing their relatives. How simple is that? You don't call it a crusade, you don't make it a unilateral invasion where 90% of the troops are American.
Maybe the only way to remove Saddam Hussein from power was by using military force, but if that was the case, there was no reason to do it in the ridiculously stupid way that Bush chose.
Besides, shouldn't the "war on terror[ists]" have been a higher priority than this attack in Iraq? And no they aren't the same thing.
Christians fought and killed eachother and other religions in the past as well. And still do today, but not nearly as much.
There does come a time for religions to mellow out- it seems to come around the two to three millenia mark. Islam won't be there for another 400-600 years yet.
So what is to say it is not the time for Islam to recognize the need for peace and the chance to start something here?
Age for one. It's not time yet for that religion to mellow. Mellowing takes a sense of history- and Islam is still very much in the early reformation stage, not nearly ready to look at itself critically yet.
And most of the people here have more electricity and more water than a year ago!
And, apparently, not nearly as much as they had when Saddam was in power.
Many have more electricity than before the war. It is more equitably distributed now than it was then, so some Iraqis have less.
And you don't think that the ones who have less aren't going to be pissed off about it?
If they'd stop trying to destroy their own infrastructure, there would be a lot more progress.
And gee- who gave them the weaponry and explosives to do that, do you think?
If Sunni and Shi'a are radical Islam, then what isn't radical Islam?
Islam is in the middle of their reformation period- the only non-radical Islamist is a Moslem Agnostic, also known as a Sufi. But they don't exist in Iraq.
Yes there are radical Sunni, radical Shi'a, just as there are radicals in every other religion. The entire sect is not radical.
Yep- tell that to the guy who gets beat up for not answering the prayer bell. Or try to tell the Shi'ite who lost family members to Saddam's Sunni gas attacks that the Sunnis aren't radical. Try to tell the Sunni who is deathly afraid of retaliation that the Shi'ite isn't radical. Try to tell the Kurds that the Sunis and the Shi'ites won't invade the north the second coalition troops leave. The hatred goes a lot deeper than you imagine.
The government here has been drafted carefully to try to prevent any one group from being in complete power,
Currently, yes- but it wouldn't be democracy without the possibility of that changing very quickly.
but ultimately the shape of Iraq's government is in the hands of its soon to be elected government.
Which will be what, exactly?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The World is now more peaceful than ever. Both the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and Project Ploughshares report that the number of conflicts and the total bloodshed declined to new lows in 2003. Bush has ended the 25 years of war in Afghanistan. The Administration has also negotiated a cease-fire in southern Sudan, ending a civil war that killed over two million people, and the Administration has kept Darfur from turning into a Rwanda. Bloodshed has also decreased in most of Africa, Kashmir has cooled significantly, and the disengagement policy in Israel/Palestine has reduced terrorist violence significantly. Iraq will soon become democratic and free, which will create peace.
While Clinton was busy negotiating "peace" with Arafat, 800,000 people were slaughtered in Rwanda, 1 million died in war in Sudan, hundreds of thousands died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the world did not seem to care. With Bush as president, the rest of the world actually seems to care about innocent bloodshed. The more that war leads the news, the faster peace breaks out.
For those comparing the deaths we caused vs. those committed by Sadam, lets not forget that we take partial blame for many of the atrocities committed by Sadam in the 80s (the most egregious ones, those most commonly cited in justifications of the war) had the approval of Reagan and Thatcher.
Also, does it really make sense to cite events before the last invasion as justification for the current one?
- Every person in Iraq is a potential terrorist.
- If all Iraqis don't voluntarily give up their wepons, they should be shot
- Problematic spots should be nuked
- To cover for a shoulder-to-shoulder weapons sweep of the entire country a draft should be instantiated.
- You'd rather have thousands more dead Americans than have even small groups of armed insurgents.
- You believe it is possible to obtain *every* wepon in the hands of people in the *entire* country of Iraq
- You can't reliably bury wepons (um, put them in a crate dumbass)
- Any house you can't search fully should be razed to the ground.
- You believe that 1.5 million of armed MPs should gaurd our coastlines at the same time, hell let's draft the entire able bodied population
So then after you raise the armed forces number to like 3 million, and therby having to switch to a wartime economy, the economy will get better. Sure, it worked after mechanising the country after the most debilitating depression in history, it'll *have* to work again! Look how well it also worked for Britian and Frace after WWII! And Russia during the cold war!.Also after forcability beating down the entire county of Iraq and calling them all terrorists, and murdering hundreds and hundreds of thousands of civilians (along with 50,000 GI's) simply because they wouldn't give up their guns, and nuking "problematic" spots, we unite the ENTIRE Arab world against us (they're all just potential terrorists anyway)! Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, Pakistan, Eygpt, Libia, Iran, and Turkey declare war on the US, which is OK because we have a draft now! Nato votes to disband the treaty with the US. The UN leaves New york! Irsael is invaded by the above "coalition" and we have to back them! Hundreds of thousands of US and Israelis die! Instead of under 2000, like under the current president.
Seriously, troll. What is your end picture like? You're 33 and you think your steps would put us in a *better* situation?
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
The whole "they hate freedom" argument is kind of lame.
I'd say their lust for greed, power and control is what drives them rather then something abstract such as hating all the free people of the world.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
Stop posting these ass-hat MOD PARENT posts.
If you don't have mod points and don't have anything intelligent to add to the comment, just shut the fuck up please.
I believe anyone who has modpoints can very well decide based on his very own judgement what to moderate.
Yep. Not only that, but Kerry doesn't exactly plan to end the war anytime soon--he basically wants to send more troops to Iraq now. He needs to prove he's a "strong" leader (out-Bush Bush and his cowboy act, basically) so he wants to "win" the war. Only real difference between Bush and Kerry is Kerry is a better salesman, a better liar.
The Counterpunch writers have a book, Not a Dime's Worth of Difference, that details exactly how similar Kerry and Bush are. The book is a collection of essays, many of which have been published on the website, also.
Tahya al-Moqawama al-Iraqiya.
Liberty in your lifetime
But it is an interesting thing to observe, I think, how much different the worlds' attitude toward empires is now.
We also frown upon tying people to crosses and lighting them on fire. Funny how times change.
But not for Bush or Kerry if you dislike the Iraq war.
Finkployd
there ain't no such thing as civilians in Iraq. Only various factions of verious fanatical terrorist groups
Have you tried to re-read yourself become clicking "submit"?
In one sentence you summarized your level of idiocy, ignorance and mental sickness. Mod me troll or flamebait, blast my karma, but I am sorry, I cannot read such a misguided statement without reacting. That is because of people like you who are blindlessly and blissfully ignorant that things like the Iraq war happen in the first place.
Do you really think that a mother of four with her children are all terrorists? I don't.
This is just plain sick reasoning.
Troll.
,*You* believe that:
If you had been reading me all along on this topic, you would already know that I support either one of two exit strategies for the War On Terror- genocide or surrender. Guess which one I support more. I'll give you a hint- it's easier to redesign an economic system than to create a new religious/moral system.
Ok so let me clear this up.
Good luck- better men than you have tried to pin me down and failed miserably.
In your fscked up, racist dream world
Make that in my totally passionless realism world based on past behavior of the peoples involved.
Every person in Iraq is a potential terrorist.
I'll modify that slightly for you- Every person in the middle east who subscribes to Nation of Islam theology or Zionist Jewish theology (you know, the two that say the only way to build a just world is under a theocracy) of any tribe or sect is a potential terrorist under the current definition of the term.
If all Iraqis don't voluntarily give up their wepons, they should be shot
This is the definition of being the losing population under a foreign occupation under every successfull ocupation I've ever seen or read about.
Problematic spots should be nuked
This is separate from the current discussion- but as a rule turning a problematic region into radioactive glass serves as a warning for future generations not to mimic the same behavior. But it doesn't take nukes to do it- General Titus in 70 AD stopped Zionist rebellion in the region for 1600 years using nothing but bronze swords, ploughs, and salt. Of course, he killed somewhere around 50,000 Jews to accomplish this task- but hey, he was hampered by his tools.
To cover for a shoulder-to-shoulder weapons sweep of the entire country a draft should be instantiated.
If we're going to invade at all- there's always the other option in a war against terrorists, isolationism and armed surrender. That's Kucinich's method and is far preferable to the other alternative- but like you say, Bush and Kerry have chosen the other alternative (or chosen to lose, I'm not sure which yet).
You'd rather have thousands more dead Americans than have even small groups of armed insurgents.
Those who choose safety over liberty are deserving of neither.
You believe it is possible to obtain *every* wepon in the hands of people in the *entire* country of Iraq
It's possible to do *anything* you put your mind to doing if you are resolute enough. Isn't that what Bush has been trying to tell us?
You can't reliably bury wepons (um, put them in a crate dumbass)
You *really* don't know very much about firearms, do you? Or about the climate of Iraq?
Any house you can't search fully should be razed to the ground.
Military Strategy 101: NEVER leave behind a building that you're not going to use yourself, no matter how harmless it looks. Any 14-year-old playing Starcraft can learn that- why can't Mr. Bush?
You believe that 1.5 million of armed MPs should gaurd our coastlines at the same time, hell let's draft the entire able bodied population
Just like we did during WWII. Better yet- if we draft the entire able bodied population, and put them to work REDUCING OUR ENERGY USAGE and CREATING NEW ENERGY SOURCES, we might just get by with ONLY guarding our borders. But only if we're willing to truly close them off to anybody who would invade here.
So then after you raise the armed forces number to like 3 million
Nah, let's get it up to 100 million.
and therby having to switch to a wartime economy, the economy will get better.
In the past, wartime economies have *always* been better- our economy profited from the Civil War, from the Spainish American War, from WWI, from WWII, from Korea, from Vietnam, and from the first Gulf W
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Have you tried to re-read yourself become clicking "submit"?
Yes- and I happen to stand by what I wrote.
In one sentence you summarized your level of idiocy, ignorance and mental sickness. Mod me troll or flamebait, blast my karma, but I am sorry, I cannot read such a misguided statement without reacting. That is because of people like you who are blindlessly and blissfully ignorant that things like the Iraq war happen in the first place.
And I'd say it's your total ignorance of Radical Islamic teaching that is the cause.
Do you really think that a mother of four with her children are all terrorists? I don't.
The mother may not be- but the kids growing up in a fatherless home where the father was killed by coalition forces most certainly ARE POTENTIAL TERRORISTS that will attack the United States one day. Ignorance of the meaning of family in Middle Eastern cultures won't stop those kids from one day strapping on bombs to take out an American Tourist Bus. The fact that you don't understand this is proof of just how insular your thinking is.
This is just plain sick reasoning.
From the culture you were raised in, yes. The whole concept of the reasoning behind terrorism is sick to you, because YOU ARE NOT A TERRORIST. It would be worrying if you had any other reaction. I, on the other hand, have contemplated becoming a terrorist. Have contemplated what might make me act that way. Have even gone so far at times to stockpile the weaponry needed. I understand where the Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds are coming from- I understand because my own Cherokee, Nes Pierce, and Kwakiutal ancestors were faced with the same problem of a foreign group imposing their genocidal behavior and laws and language on us. You are not in that position. Thank God that your ancestors were never in that position. But don't denegrate the desparation of those who are- or you will one day find your own relatives targets of the hatred.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
... compared with how many have already died because of the embargo.
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
Violated their national soverignty? Technically it was a cease-fire. The cease-fire was good as long as they followed the UN resolutions. Obviously they didn't. Hussein apparently asked us to invade, despite Frances assurances to him that they'd block any attempt.
After 10 years of violating UN resolutions it was the right thing for us to do. We know why certain nations were against us in this. Hussein had them on the take. How was Bush supposed to proceed? Some nations wouldn't budge for some unkown (at the time reason). Now we know, and Bush made the right decision.
You are completely right that hate will take time to fade. It's not going to fade in an environment like Afghanistan had. Providing a place were a true economy can grow. Providing a democracy can give an environment where the hate can fade.
We also frown upon tying people to crosses and lighting them on fire. Funny how times change.
The difference being that some behaviors, like burning people on crosses, we've learned as a society not to do.
At the time we invaded, they were following UN resolutions (ie, allowing inspectors unfettered access to essentially anywhere they wanted to go). We swore up and down to the UN that they had WMDs (remeber Colin Powell?), and then when we came crashing in there and trashed their country, it became evident that we had in fact been lying the whole time (or just incredibly, horrendously incompetent -- Powell, Rice, and Cheney aren't idiots, so I don't buy that).
There's one other problem with forcing democracy on them: they don't want it. If things are truly allowed to run their course in the Iraqi election (which you can bet they won't be), Iraq would end up with a Muslim fundamentalist leader who would just start stripping away everyone's freedoms again. Pretty soon you'd end up with another country where women have to be covered from head to toe and are punished for being raped.
Oh, and one other thing. You claim that other countries were "on the take" from Saddam Hussein. Maybe they were just being reasonable and didn't want to invade Iraq while Saddam was complying with UN inspections. Our reason for invading at the time that we did it was that Saddam had failed to produce any WMDs (I stress at the time because our reason has since "flip-flopped" "opportunistcally"). It's obvious now that the reason he couldn't produce them is that he didn't have any at all.
...nuke Israel- those Zionists are just as much potential terrorists now ...
You must be great at parties.
Nation of Islam theology or Zionist Jewish theology (you know, the two that say the only way to build a just world is under a theocracy)
That statement proves you know nothing about the fundamental tennant of either faith.
But only if we're willing to truly close them off to anybody who would invade here.
The United States didn't become a super power until *after* it came out of it's isolationist shell. You would totally close the borders? If not how would you know who was a bad guy? Not all terrorists look arab. If you do close the borders, there goes turism and shorty after, trade. The US plunges into recession. Face it, the US depends on the rest of the world for it's success, as the rest of the world depends on it.
Under 2000? I think you're forgetting our losses on 9-11- the 5000 who died then.
Iraq had no ties to the "war on terror" until we invaded it. Research shows Saddam wasn't a threat, and thumped his chest largely to scare Iran from attacking. And if you say, "we did it to protect he iraqies" that's invalid too, because you already said they're all terrorists.
You *really* don't know very much about firearms, do you? Or about the climate of Iraq?
In a descent container, with no risk of water damage, in a cool and dry place? Who is the one who doesn't know about weapons? I'd suggest watching one of the execellent documentaries on the discovery channel about patrols in Afganistan, a country with a climate curiously akin to Iraq. One of their major problems fighting weapons smuggling is buried weapons. Get a clue.
Good luck- better men than you have tried to pin me down and failed miserably.
Seeing as how you agreed with my short recap, I'd say I did pretty well. You are a troll, I don't even believe you believe what you say. In your world, you've just banished all of our allies. Europe, Israel, Japan, banashed off because "they haven't recently done anything for us". You've not given anybody reason to like us. In fact you've given most of the world reason to nuke *us*. Here another great scenario.
China, North Korea, and Russia, upon seeing the defiant actions of the United States unilaterally killing millions, and indescriminant use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, shoots their wad of nukes at us. The young missle defense shield takes out about 1/3 of the incoming warheads. Every loses. Every dies.
I suggest you research the nation-state balance of Europe in through the second milenia. Any nation-state that got too powerful was leveled by the conglomeration of it's less powerful neighbors. You simply can not create peace through indescriminate violence. It violates every principle the United States was founded on.
Just on the simple supposition that everybody in the middle east is a potential terrorist, people will see you are a nut job. 2000 years of dirt and violence in the middle east? Nope. During the dark and middle ages where did technology and art come from? Arabia. They used to be far more-enlightened then any of our ancestors. Violence isn't heretitary. It's taught.
You would throw away tens of millions of lives? 100 million in the military? Who will support them? That's more than one out of three, far more than the able bodies population. But the US is only ~1/27 of the world population. And after you forsake all of our allies in the name of misguided liberty, it's the united states that will be reduced to radio-active glass.
You forget that it wasn't that long ago that the US was a theocracy in reality. Run almost entirely by WASPs and not terribly tolerant of outsiders. Native Americans, Black, Irish, Jews, you name it. Have you forgoten your own heritage?
Don't even get me started on your rediculous supposition that every war is
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
He wasn't following UN resolutions. If he was we wouldn't have found missiles that he wasn't supposed to have, amongst other things.
Latest polls in Iraq show that they *do* want a democracy. One of the nice things about Saddam paying lip service to Islam over the years and basically running a secular government is that the majority of the people want a secular government. One of the nice things about trying to do this in Iraq is that the populace is relatively well educated for the region. For these reasons, it's likely that democracy would work better in Iraq than Afghanistan! No wonder the crazies are fighting tooth and nail in Iraq.
The younger generation in Iran want the same thing. We've been watching these movements over the years in Iran, hoping that things will turn someday. It was even covered on TV news magazines a few years ago about how Westernized the younger Iranians are becoming. We now have Iran basically surrounded. We have then surrounded by democracies! What a brilliant strategy! This will hopefully put pressure on the Iranian leaders to keep in line and allow the younger generations to move forward in building a Iranian democracy.
This isn't going to happen overnight, it might take 10 or 20 years, but it's worth it!
The UN violations weren't just about WMD. Now we find out that they had explosives that were supposed to be destroyed, but the UN inspection group allowed it anyways because they were convinced Saddam would only use them for mining, etc. That might have been true, but he still wasn't supposed to have them.
Wrong thinking will be just as quickly punished. But no no... it's the Republicans and wacko right wingers who are orwellian...
Remember, in this time of spirit and liberty and free speech and free thought, you better think the way WE do, or else...
"or else what?"
"or else we will be very angry with you and and we will write down how angry we are and send it to you in a letter and then mod you down."
"Fine Hans... why don't you step a little to the left..."
Because you are trying to free them?
You must be great at parties.
Parties are things that only Neurotypical people go to.
That statement proves you know nothing about the fundamental tennant of either faith.
Or maybe you're the one who doesn't have Zionists and Islamics in the family- thus you haven't heard some of the more "special" ideas they have for Mecca or Jerusalem's place in the world.
The United States didn't become a super power until *after* it came out of it's isolationist shell.
And it can go right back in, now that it's proven that it doesn't know how to be a superpower without making people want to blow up buildings with planes.
You would totally close the borders? If not how would you know who was a bad guy?
I think you have some mistaken idea what closing the borders means. Obviously, anybody trying to get across the border without prior authorization and a background check is a BAD GUY! Ideally- so is anybody with prior authorization and a background check that was done in any foriegn nation- because they don't have the data protection laws we do here. Thus, anybody trying to come across a closed border is a BAD GUY.
Not all terrorists look arab. If you do close the borders, there goes turism and shorty after, trade. The US plunges into recession. Face it, the US depends on the rest of the world for it's success, as the rest of the world depends on it.
The US is already in a depression, it's just hidden under the fake numbers placed in the stock market by the SEC. Like I said before- it's a choice between our morality and our economy- and it's far easier to redesign the economic system to work without foreign trade than it is to design a new religious/moral code that allows the murder of a billion people, regardless of the fact that they are trying to kill us right back.
Iraq had no ties to the "war on terror" until we invaded it. Research shows Saddam wasn't a threat, and thumped his chest largely to scare Iran from attacking. And if you say, "we did it to protect he iraqies" that's invalid too, because you already said they're all terrorists.
Ah, you're drinking THAT flavor of the Kool-aid. Thank you for straightening that out.
What you fail to understand is the lesson I learned the hard way over the last four years- Islamics, Europeans, MNC C-level executives, Asains, none of them can be trusted. It's time to take back America for the only Americans that count- the natives.
In a descent container, with no risk of water damage, in a cool and dry place?
Well, two out of three ain't bad. But somehow, 120 degree AVERAGE temperature- and 10 feet down, that's what you get, the average outside temperature, year around- is anything but cool.
Who is the one who doesn't know about weapons? I'd suggest watching one of the execellent documentaries on the discovery channel about patrols in Afganistan, a country with a climate curiously akin to Iraq.
I'll have to remember that one- you think the Hindu Kush Mountain Range is the same climate as a desert that is several latitude south and several longitude west.
One of their major problems fighting weapons smuggling is buried weapons. Get a clue.
Granted- that's one of the major problems in AFGHANISTAN. But we were talking about Iraq- totally different climate.
Seeing as how you agreed with my short recap, I'd say I did pretty well.
Read again- see how much I agreed with you when I changed every single point!
In your world, you've just banished all of our allies. Europe, Israel, Japan, banashed off because "they haven't recently done anything for us". You've not given anybody reason to like us. In fact you've given most of the world reason to nuke *us*. Here another great scenario.
Guess what- they already have plenty of reason to nuke us. But I know you can't see it- because you haven't lost your trust yet. Foolish, naiv
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The difference being that some behaviors, like burning people on crosses, we've learned as a society not to do.
Not really. The difference is you guys lost that war.
It was a war people! The purpose of war is to KILL PEOPLE.
Is it a war if we do not formally declare war?
And even in the obvious face of war profiteering, the current administration denies empire-building.
It doesn't go well with the Humanitarian argument they switched to after no WMDs were found.
I think, how much different the worlds' attitude toward empires is now.
I think it started in World War II, maybe WWI, when they started prosecuting soldiers for the (up until then) common pracice of looting. Through most of history, that is where the big payoff was for soldiers and mercinaries. But after WWII they started thinking in terms of ethics within war.
That's why people are appalled at civilian casualties these days.
Ironically, the ratio of combatant to civilian casualties has shifted dramatically towards civilians since then.
Nobody died when Nixon lied.
I'm meeting you half way you stupid hippies!
The US is already in a depression, it's just hidden under the fake numbers placed in the stock market by the SEC.
So you are a conspiry theorist to eh? Purputrated by the evil Zionists no doubt. As usual no evidence to back anything up. If you'd like *me* to site sources on anything I say here I'd be delighted.
And the fact you actually bought the lie that the dark ages existed
Ok, I give up. Why didn't the dark ages exist? More Zionist Propaganda? And as to your supposition that Arabia was nothing but war-driven, who invaded them during the crusades? Oh and I forget about the massive European secular art movement at the time. As for their art, have you actually seen any of it. Have you ever been to school? You still sound like a high schooler.
Well, two out of three ain't bad. But somehow, 120 degree AVERAGE temperature- and 10 feet down, that's what you get, the average outside temperature, year around- is anything but cool.
Uhg. Check it out. Yes it gets hot, often to 120, but that is nowhere near the average. 104 in the summer, 50 in the winter. Average? 75. But ever notice how cool it is in your basement, even in the summertime? Same concept. The average temperature ten feet down at that latitude in summer is a sweltering 65. Look it up dick cheese. The sun really doesn't have a chance to warm up the soil more than a couple feet down before it cools down to nighttime again. And I guess you've never heard about the story during the first iraq war, a stranded special ops force had serveral members freeze to death when they were caught unprepared for the climate. No, Iraq isn't as mountainous as Afganistan, but it's deserts get just as hot. Buried weapons last a long time.
my heritage is Cherokee, Kwakiutal, and Nes Pierce.
If that's you at the informationr.us page, then I don't believe you for one second. Then again, why should I?
your lying white ancestors
Were still in Europe until the 1900's, and never went further west than the mississipi until the next generation. When I said about our heritage I mean as a whole nation.
Your xenophobic, racist, revisionist, ignorant, hawkish points of view holds no more interest to me. And if you really believe what you say, you should put our discussion on you family and business page and attribute it to yourself just in case any evil Zionists or Muslims want to do business with you. You think *any* US politian would've done what you said?
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
We had a federal election in Australia 'bout 2 weeks ago. This report could have a had an effect on the result.
I think this internet thing sounds like a good idea
I was wondering where the researchers who came up with the "1-in-10 people are gay" results were going to find work, noting the singular lunacy of their results compared to other researchers. Do they now estimate war deaths? Just as the gay community jumped on the 10% bandwagon, no matter how inflated that was, no doubt this pravda about 100k excess deaths is going to be trumpted as a great truth by some.
The difference between
Well, I'd say that an act of aggression from one sovereign state against another is a declaration of war in and of itself.
We're also in a tough spot in that we have been declared war upon, but really have no one to declare war against ourselves, since Al Qaida isn't a sovereign nation. So we're left taking it out on any state which appears to be in cahoots with them. Which means about half the Muslim world. Hardly a solid basis for peaceful existence, if you ask me.
I think we need something more substantial than the inference of collusion before we invade another nation, for 'humanitarian' purposes or otherwise.
I do call into question your civvy/military death ratio though - do you have any sources to back that up? Were records even kept of civilian deaths before WWI? And even then are we sure that it wasn't the development and indiscriminate use of massively destructive weapons (machine guns, TNT, high explosives, nerve gas, etc.) wouldn't be the cause for the higher civilian death toll, and not the fact that soldiers can't loot? I'm not sure there's a 1:1 correlation there...
Well, atleast the terrorists got what they deserved. I mean, the guys who stole the WMD. I mean, Sadaam, who's evil and wants to conquer the world.
War sucks. Unjustified wars even more.
I'd like to see some evidence for this claim, please. Al-Sadr is an Iraqi, and his authority comes from his Iraqi cleric father.
And as for the "foreign terrorists" - there weren't any in Iraq before it became a lawless hellhole, but now there are plenty of fundamentalists trying to set up a theocracy! I look forward to the elections being staged so a "democratic" candidate wins, instead of the hard-liner that (sadly) the majority of the people would vote for.
It's not a secret that lots of slashdotters are against the war. What I want to know is, what would they have done about Saddam? And I want honest answers. This is a guy that has used chemical weapons to kill thousands of his own people, and has repeatedly threatened his neighbors. Yes, oil matters. The world runs on it. Thus, the world should give a shit if one guy with a big army threatens that resource. ( I still say the notion that we went to war this time for oil is bullshit, but that's another argument).
So slashdotters, fess up. What should've been done to Saddam? Should we have just stepped back and let the UN handle it? Should we tried to have used diplomacy to get him to change his ways? Should we have tried to remove him at all? What about the sanctions? Yes, people were starving. What would your solution be, slashdotters? Come on, be honest.
While I've seen plenty of angry rhetoric here, I've yet to see anyone say "We should have done "insert solution here" instead". So what about it? And when I mean honest, I mean it. If you just don't give a fuck about the Iraqis, or democracy in Iraq, and think it's none of our business, piss on 'em, they're on their own, say it. If you think the UN could've REALLY handled the problem, say it. If you think all Saddam needed was a little TLC, then say it. If you had another idea other than sanctions or war to contain or eliminate Baathism, then lets hear it.
What I don't want to hear is mealy-mouthed sidestepping of the issues. I figure opposition to Iraq comes in two varieties: the "fuck those people, it's none of our business variety", and the "the cause was right, but we went about it all wrong variety". If you have another view, then by all means, share it.
I'm just tired of all of the criticism of the war without alternative solutions from you guys. What should (or should've) been done?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
If you and John Stuart Mills have differences, take it outside.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Yeah, but if we mobilized for war after 9/11, we wouldn't have gotten our sweet tax cut. Did you just say "deficit"? Nanananananana-I'm-not-listening-nananananananana.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
1) Put all the friendly Iraqis on boats in the Persian Gulf.
2) With either nukes or conventional weapons, flatten the country, killing all the insurgents and terrorists.
3) Sink all the boats.
I'll leave 4) Profit!!! as an exercise for the management of Halliburton.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Deaths were estimated at 98,000, but Slate points out that the 95% confidence interval on this estimate is 8,000-194,000 deaths. In other words, they are 95% sure that the true number of dead lies in this range. This estimate excludes surveys in Fallujah.
Not exactly precision estimates, you'll notice. The other critical thing pointed out by the Slate article is that this calculation tries to get at the number of deaths due to the invasion by factoring out the normal death rate. However, the Lancet study may have significantly underestimated the average Iraqi's chances of death before the invasion. For instance, if I say that 5 people would have died without the invasion, and we know that 10 people died, we know the invasion killed 5 people. BUT if my estimates says that 7 people would have died without the invasion and 10 died after an invasion, then the invasion has only killed 3 people.
Based on media reports, iraqbodycount.net estimates the (reported) deaths at 14181-16312. It is probably much higher than that, unless the media is doing a great job getting out there and reporting all the deaths. So who knows. It is probably higher than 15,000. Off by a factor of two, maybe at 30,000? Unfortunately its just about impossible to know.
It's still a tragedy regardless.
I should be clear, I'll take the former! (Wetern Imperialism)
correction
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Doctors are very interested in epidemics as they are responsible for attempting to save what they can to increase survivability. Doctors can be interested in all kinds of things because of that from road accidents, narcotics, to lead poisoning (particularly the kind coming from impact).
Asains, none of them ...
Very unfortunate choice of words. Maybe you should have said Asian nations.
At this point, do you really believe that closing the borders would make everyone else all of the sudden think differently of us and stop terrorist attacks? No way.
We need to engage the world as equals, not superiors. We need to practice what we preach, show compassion for the less fortunate nations, and try and gain morality once again. None of this can be done if we close ourselves up like 1700s China trying to stop Christianity. Look what the close door policy did to China. Do you really want us to go there?
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
"It was a war people! The purpose of war is to KILL PEOPLE"
It is not the purpose of a war to kill civilians. And I think the point of the article is that so many have died and for what? We were told to rid Iraq of WMD.
Well from the beginning I spoke out against this immoral preemptive strike. This was and is a blood for votes war and I don't think we should reward a mental midget for doing such an evil thing.
Over 100,000 people are dead and all Bush can say is the world is better off without Saddam. The problem with that is it marginalizes the value of all who died. Including over 1,000 Americans. The world is NOT better off. Over 100,000 dead and for what? To kick some asshole out of his job. He was already contained. Bush can't even admit that he may have made a mistake. A real cowboy's cowboy. These were REAL PEOPLE, not just numbers on a piece of paper.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
In a recent press conference, George Bush was asked if he had made any mistakes during his presidency. He couldn't come up with any off the top of his head. So I compiled a little video to refresh his memory. Check it out at hategun.com
Can you tell me a time in history when it was not the purpose of war to kill civilians?
I suppose I oversimplified when I said that the purpose of war was to kill people. I think a more accurate statement would be to say that the purpose of war is to subjugate people. In most circumstances, that means killing enough people to inspire the remainder to be docile and obedient.
Now in many circumstances, killing the military element can be enough to subjugate the civilians, but not in all cases, especially in areas of the world where the civilian and military elements are not clearly defined. How do you define 'military'? Only those people who have enlisted as regulars in the armed forces? By that definition, there were an amazing number of "civilian" snipers in Viet Nam... and a great many "civilian" combatants in Afghanistan and Iraq as well. I wonder how many of those are counted in the figure quoted here?
To make matters worse, what do you do with a combatant that hides among civilians? When a sniper takes up residence in a civilian hospital (the likes of which happens regularly), what is the opposing force to do? How many of its own military force is an opposing army to sacrifice before killing the civilians? Whose interests are they supposed to have in mind?
What makes all this interesting is that the armed forces of the United States actually do put the civilian population ahead of its own safety to a large degree, something that is unprecedented in the history of warfare. The U.S. militaries go out of their way to target military targets and leave the civilians in relative safety. This is a change even from WWII, where relatively indiscriminate carpet bombing was the norm. And it's certainly in marked contrast to the tactics used by Al Qaeda in 2001. I don't think they got a single military target, did they?
Now here's an interesting thing... according to The Iraq body count page, the reported number of Iraqi civilians killed post-Saddam in Iraq is just over 16,000. That a far cry from the 100,000 which was estimated for the New Scientist article. Does this mean that less than 1 in 5 civilian deaths is being reported? I think there are some screwy numbers being thrown around here.
And lastly, it's been reported that during Saddam's reign, as many as 2 million people may have died as a result of his rule. So even using the most conservative estimates, we're talking a 20:1 ratio of Saddam's dead to post-Saddam dead. So far I'd say there's not even a comparison.
Having said all that, I must say that I still don't think the invasion of Iraq was justified. But we're stuck with it now, so we have to make the best of it. And I can tell you, that life would be considerably more dangerous for 300+ million Americans if a power void the size of Iraq is left to the radical muslims to take over.
At this point, do you really believe that closing the borders would make everyone else all of the sudden think differently of us and stop terrorist attacks? No way.
You apparently didn't watch (or maybe didn't watch YET) Bin Laden's most recent tape over the weekend.
All they want is for us to stop messing around in the politics of the area. What that means in the middle east is we need to pull our corporations & soldiers OUT- button down and stop endangering Arab Security by supporting corrupt and downright criminal regimes. Do that- and al Qaida has NO real qualms with us. Better yet- stop importing from China and China in turn will use less oil, thus giving the common arab in the street a better chance at Justice. That's what Jihad is to begin with after all, the fight for justice.
We need to engage the world as equals, not superiors.
Too late by over 100 years- the Monroe Doctrine, should we choose to continue it, insures that we will NEVER engage the world as equals- always as superiors. I say, better than that- stop egaging the world at all. Why should we force our way of life off onto others? What's so wrong about their way of life that we have to destroy it?
We need to practice what we preach, show compassion for the less fortunate nations, and try and gain morality once again.
The best way we can do that is to admit that we don't have all the answers- admit that we've FAILED every place we've tried to replace their government (we have, after all- Japan's been in a recession for nearly 15 years now, Germany is returning to their superior form of government), and stop destroying the way of life in the third world. Don't try to industrialize them- they don't need industrializing, and when they do, they'll find a way to do it themselves with no help from us. Everything we touch, we affect negatively- so we should stop touching.
None of this can be done if we close ourselves up like 1700s China trying to stop Christianity.
None of it can be done at all. It's a bad idea. We're not competent enough to run a stable economy or an honest government here- what makes you think we can run one elsewhere? It's simply a bad idea.
Look what the close door policy did to China. Do you really want us to go there?
YES. Everything that is bad in our society is tied to two basic wrong headed ideas:
1. That multinational corporations are good for anybody other than the investors and C-level executives of multinational corporations.
2. That we can duplicate the freedom we had in the 1820s by mimicing the economy and government we had in the 1920s elsewhere.
Neither of these are valid ideas- and neither should be even attempted.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
So you are a conspiry theorist to eh? Purputrated by the evil Zionists no doubt. As usual no evidence to back anything up. If you'd like *me* to site sources on anything I say here I'd be delighted.
Zionists are not a part of this- only Mammon worshipers in the great church of the stock markets. The Zionists don't affect anything outside of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- because that's their only issue.
Ok, I give up. Why didn't the dark ages exist?
Because the whole label of "The Dark Ages" is a PROTESTANT propaganda.
More Zionist Propaganda?
Nope, has nothing to do with them- during this period, most Zionists were slaves.
And as to your supposition that Arabia was nothing but war-driven, who invaded them during the crusades?
Arabia invaded the Holy Land, which called to the Pope for assistance, which created the Crusades. Arabia was the invader- the Crusaders were defenders.
Oh and I forget about the massive European secular art movement at the time.
As can be seen in the Churches and Monasteries from that time.
As for their art, have you actually seen any of it. Have you ever been to school? You still sound like a high schooler.
I have a BSET from Oregon Institute of Technology- admitedly it's not a Islamic Institution, but it's equal to your bigoted anti-Catholic viewpoint.
If that's you at the informationr.us page, then I don't believe you for one second. Then again, why should I?
Pretty bigotted thinking you know everything about a person's heritage from the color of their skin, but that's just what I'd expect from a WASP like you.
Were still in Europe until the 1900's, and never went further west than the mississipi until the next generation. When I said about our heritage I mean as a whole nation.
Then you shouldn't be talking about it- since you have no ancestors who were here back then.
Your xenophobic, racist, revisionist, ignorant, hawkish points of view holds no more interest to me. And if you really believe what you say, you should put our discussion on you family and business page and attribute it to yourself just in case any evil Zionists or Muslims want to do business with you. You think *any* US politian would've done what you said?
No- which is why I'll be starting a new political party this coming Saturday- to stick up for the nativist point of view.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Because you are trying to free them?
If we were ACTUALLY trying to "free" them, we'd be treating them one hell of a lot better than arresting them and torturing them in the prisons. Heck- if we really believed in a just God who *personally* intervenes in history, we'd realize that all of our messing about in the middle east has done nothing by create *more* suffering- and that the only two possible solutions at this point are genocide or isolationism- with isolationism being the more moral of the two choices.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
" Can you tell me a time in history when it was not the purpose of war to kill civilians?"
Any war since the adoption of the Geneva Convention. But like so many things, it looks nice on paper but doesn't ever seem to pan out in real life.
I do, however, expect that my country will try to do the right thing. Looks good on paper anyway.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Less filling no content. Again with the empty retorts. When you are going to challange the status quo, you might want to give something to back up what you're saying.
As can be seen in the Churches and Monasteries from that time.
Do you know what secular means? Yes there *was* secular art by Europeans at the time, by the vast majority was sacred. Idiot.
but it's equal to your bigoted anti-Catholic viewpoint.
I was born and raised Catholic. I can only assume you called me anti-Catholic because you are and think that if I disagree with you, I must be anti-Catholic. Correct me if I'm wrong. Hmm... Mammons and neuraltypicals? You sound like wacko Christian fundamentalist. See isn't making brash statements fun?
Pretty bigotted thinking you know everything about a person's heritage from the color of their skin, but that's just what I'd expect from a WASP like you.
I never said I was a WASP, in fact far from it. I said I shared America's heritage, and I'm proud of it. This country was made great on the shoulders of immigrants. You just look like a fat, white, midwesterner with ancestry from eastern-europe. Pure bred native american? I still call bullshit. I'd believe maybe 1/16th. Oh and I forgot about your family which has both Islamic and Zionists in it. Right.
Then you shouldn't be talking about it- since you have no ancestors who were here back then.
So I can't make assertions on history unless my ancestors were there? I've never heard a more rediculous argument.
No- which is why I'll be starting a new political party this coming Saturday- to stick up for the nativist point of view.
Nativism is one of the core wrongs. It's the basis of racism and territorial disputes. Good luck with that, I heard the Nativist party in Germany thrived in the 20's and 30's. Idiot.
By the way, hire a site designer. I've never seen a more amaturish website than informationr.us. Not to mention the ugliness and dead links. You expect people to buy services from you? You call yourself a computer professional?
If you still think you're right, I be happy to schedule an IRC debate on #politics or #slashdot.
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Thanks for biting and playing- you still haven't figured it out, have you?
The whole genocide thing is a FAKE- as is Information-R-Us, as is the rest. I'm a social engineer, and you fell completely for my trap- and wasted your time completely. Heck- I even got you arguing that the Arabic World during the Dark Ages was releasing *secular* art- when secular art is completely against the Koran. You also obviously don't know anything about the history of your own religion- must be Irish or Italiano- or about the history of the United States. What a goofball!
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I called you on it from the start. But I don't like not having the last word. Also, I got *you* to say that you're a social enginer, and thereby invalidated your arguments. Waste of my time? Heh, you wasted just as much of yours.
And social engineer? Fancy word for troll, eh?
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
There were more people killed in Iraq during the Clinton Administration due to sanctions placed upon Iraq than the entire Iraqi war, most of them children.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You apparently didn't watch (or maybe didn't watch YET) Bin Laden's most recent tape
Correct (at the time), but Bin Laden is just one of many. If your trust his words, then backing out of the area would seemingly dowse his hate, but I think there is much more to the problem than just what he articulates. Doing what you suggest would be a great step in starting to repair our wrongs, but hate is a hard thing to change. Hate is directed, intense, and irrational - it takes generations to create and generations to diffuse. If Bin Ladden stop his attacks, there is enough hatred for some others to fill in for him.
Too late by over 100 years- the Monroe Doctrine
Why do you feel it is possible to put the genie of "free trade" back into the bottle, but not the Monroe Doctrine? If the US left the trade market, the whole world economy would crash. It would be a devastating blow. If the US left its currently self-appointed role of Judge/Jury/Executioner would the world suffer? No, the world would probably be much better off. We need to return to being engaged in the UN and we need to support it and its ideals through more than just words.
The best way we can do that is to admit that we don't have all the answers- admit that we've FAILED
We're not competent enough to run a stable economy or an honest government Agreed.
Everything that is bad in our society is tied to two basic wrong headed ideas:
1. That multinational corporations are good for anybody other than the investors and C-level executives of multinational corporations.
That is a stretch. Its like arguing that everything wrong today is because Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. I think Robert Burns said it best: "Nae man can tether time or tide". Multinationals are the result of a combination and evolution of the original American ideals - freedom and free trade (between States)
2. That we can duplicate the freedom we had in the 1820s by mimicing the economy and government we had in the 1920s elsewhere.
I certainly hope we are not trying to duplicate the "freedom we had in the 1820s" anywhere. It is not a brighter period of American "freedom". I agree this is bad, but how is this idea being presented today? In Iraq I'd argue that we are trying to mimic the freedom we had in the 1980s by mimicking the government and economy of the 1770s.
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
First of all, considering a zygote as a person is not justifiable in any way. After the fecundation of an oocyte, there are many scenarios in which the zygote will not continue its evolution to become a morula or blastocyst, due to various reasons: faulty fecundation, genetic anomalies incompatible with life etc... Hence it is not determined that fecundation of an oocyte will eventually result in the birth of a healthy new human being. In embryology there is a lot of controversy about the "point of no return" where scientists try to determine at what stage the embryologic evolution has progressed so far, that birth will be a 100% probability. A 1 hour old zygote/morula is NOT a person. Natural selection already acts at this level, this phenomena is called "spontaneous abortion".
About that euthanasia argument: Interestingly, it is well known that early mammals, that stood no chance against the predominant reptilian race during the age of dinosaurs, frequently killed and ate their progenity when they had to make their escape for survival. In our age, and our stage of evolution, the complexity of ourselves and our society is able to avoid such drastic measures.(welfare, child support... etc...)
Neurologically we even still grow approximatly 10 years after our birth.
pass me those sparticles will ya?!